tv Consider This Al Jazeera August 26, 2013 10:00pm-11:01pm EDT
>> welcome to al jazeera. i'm john siegenthaler. here are the headlines. un inspectors have reached the site of the suspected chemical attack there after their vehicle was hit by sniper fire. the obama administration considering how to respond to what it is calling undeniable use of chemical weapons in syria. the secretary of state said the attack was a moral obscenity, and said all signs point to the assad regime. the nation's biggest forest fire is now threating more than 4500 structures in california. the military trial of nidal
hassan now in its sentencing phase. he was found guilty of killing 13 people in 2009. students and teachers wrapped up their first day of school in chicago. some parents are complaining students are forced to walk through crime areas in chicago because of school closures. those are the headlines. "consider this" is next on al jazeera. i'll see you back here at 11:00 eastern time. and you can always get the latest online at aljazeera.com. ♪ ♪ america inching toward
action in syria. president obama, and secretary of state kerry are weighing the options as the world waits. if the u.s. does intervene what would the cost be financially and emotionally, and will americans tolerate another conflict in the middle east. and the owner of the encrypted email used by edward snowden shuts his site down, and said if you know what i know about email, you might not use it. a former disney star stuns audiences. is this proof that our culture oversexualized. good evening, i'm antonio mora, and welcome to "consider this." we begin with syria. as proof of a chemical weapon attack becomes more clear, the u.s. moves closer to action. a warning some of the footage you are about to see may be too
graphic for some viewers. >> reporter: images like this appearing to show civilians killed by a chemical weapon's attack have pulled in un workers. >> president obama believes there must be accountability for those who would use the world's most heinous weapons against the world's most vulnerable people. >> the united states is looking at all options regarding the situation in syria. >> reporter: the syrian government denies using chemical weapons, but the comments suggest the white house is moving closer than ever to military action against the assad regime. since last week, britain and france have indicated they will back u.s. action against syria,
but will the cost of intervention outweigh the potential benefits. military involvement in syria would put lives at risks, could empower extremists, and likely cost billions of dollars. the general said . . . the u.s. is already paying for years of war in iraq and afghanistan. a brown university report found those conflicts cost nearly $4 trillion. but supporters of military action in syria warn that not intervening also carries heavy costs. >> and if the united states stands by and doesn't take very serious action, not just launching some cruise missiles then again, our credible in the world is diminished even more. >> reporter: not taking serious
action could also result in more refugees, more instability in the region and more lives lost in a crisis that has already left more than 100,000 people dead. >> joining me now to discuss the latest on jair is former u.s. ambassador to iraq, christopher hill, and theater katuf former ambassador to syria. thank you for joining us. americans seem to strongly oppose any kind of intervention in syrian's war by some pretty overwhelming numbers. and it only changes a little bit if you add chemical weapons into the mix. there 25% of americans would support intervention, but 46%
still oppose it. chris, will popular opposition make the administration think twice about intervening and should it think twice? >> i think the administration is looking at this very carefully, indeed considering a lot of options. it's very clear they don't want to do this. on the other hand that statement today by secretary kerry that's about as strong diplomatic language as i have ever seen when he used the word obscenity in a statement like that. it's clear they will planning to retaliate. but will this be a military step that is punishing people who have used this weapons, or will it be a broader political process? i think it will be the former. i think many people would support a punitive action against people who have used
these kinds of weapons. >> let's talk more about the american people, because it does seem like those gut wrenching pictures didn't make a big impact on the attitude towards intervention. americans seem to be against military engagements pretty much entirely these days. less than 3% of americans thought the afghan war had been worth fighting. where do we draw the line as to where we intervene and where we don't? >> well, i think the american people are reflecting not just the ambiguous outcomes of our wars in iraq and afghanistan, but also the libbian situation, in which they thought we were doing good in the world, and we helped overthrow gadhafi, and then we had ambassador chris stevens who was really a hero in
the benghazi area, killed in that very city when he was ambassador, and then they have seen egypt and yemen erupt, and i think they rightly believe that america's ability to influence these events is very limited and would be very costly to try. >> since you bring libya up, we're almost at a year anniversary of the benghazi attack. and chris seeing what happened there, it was really fairly limited military strikes -- air strikes on libya. that was what many are proposing now for syria, and no it seems the situation in libya is much worse than it was under gadhafi in many ways. >> i think there is certainly a war weariness in though u.s., but also a war wariness as well. but i do believe that the use of
chemical weapons by this regime is something that the obama administration absolutely must react to. again, i don't think the obama administration is interested in leading the american people into a long-term war, nor does anyone in the obama administration really believe that air strikes will somehow em-bolden or sustain the opposition, the rebel forces such that they could somehow march on damascus and throw assad out. so i think we're looking at something that is probably more limited and punitive in nature. >> what about the divisions in the administration? the head of the joint chiefs has been very vary about getting involved in syria, and today he was in jordan, which is one place where american planes may stage if there is any kind of american strikes. they may be flying from jordan, but you have secretary of state kerry, we heard him earlier,
let's listen a little more to what he had to say. >> president obama has also been in close touch with leaders of our key allies, and the president will be making an informed decision about how to respond to this indiscriminate use of whim call weapons. president obama believes there must be accountability for those who would use the world's most heinous weapons, against the world's most vulnerable people. nothing is more serious today, and nothing is receiving more serious scrutiny. >> ted do you agree with chris, that it sounds like it has already been deciding that we are going to do something, and is this speech a first big step toward preparing americans with what they have planned? >> i agreed totally with what ambassador hill said.
i agree it will be punitive. and will not be prolonged. there has to be some reaction to the way these chemical weapons were employed. assad is no genius, nor are the generals around him. they have crossed a bright red line, and i think you are right, that kerry is preparing the american public and world public opinion that there has to be reaction. >> he has outlined options for congress. he did that last month. and he said it with a very stern warning that none of his choices would be easy. he mentioned air strikes, the cost for that would be in the billions. he also talked about establishing a no-fly zone. that would initially cost $50 million. other options were to establish
buffer zones that would protect the boarders of turkey and jordan, protect refugees. that would mean possibly getting american boots on the ground, and that would be a billion dollars a month. and the final option would be to try to destroy the chemical weapons themselves. but that would involve special operations forces to know what was there and control the situation, and that would average another billion dollars a month. we were looking at some other numbers, and billion dollars is the annual budget for miami and pittsburgh. how much should cost be a part of the equation? >> well, my suspicion is as the administration considers the options that you have just laid out, it's not so much the cost in economic terms, it's the cost in political terms. i don't think this is a president who really wants to
get us, once again, on the ground in the middle east. so i think that's a far bigger factor than the cost of having troops on the ground. if history is a guide, america is not so much judged by looking at the cost as if we're going through a restaurant menu, and deciding whether -- what type of dish to have. i think it's much more in terms of the politics of it, what will work, what is sustainable? and i respect realistically speaking we're looking at a shorter-term option. i do believe that the obama administration really ought to give some thought to a stepped up diplomatic effort. because this war is very dangerous not just in syria but all over the middle east. and the administration should give some thought in how we want this thing to end up.
what we can do with countries that we have had great disagreement with such as russia. perhaps the longer-term implications would be to try to start some serious diplomacy, because we really haven't had much of that. >> that's one thing you have criticized in writing before. you said part of the problem with syria is the obama administration demonized assad from the beginning, and said he had to go, and that kind of painted us into a corner. ted do you agree with chris on that? >> yeah, i largely do. i would give the administration, perhaps a bit more credit for its diplomatic efforts. after all russia has really been dug in, but it's never a good idea for the president of the united states to make a declarative statement that so and so must be removed if he doesn't have a plan to accomplish it.
and in this case obviously we did not. and this is a sectarian civil war. sunni's against the largely minority aloi's, and nobody really knows what an end state would look like -- >> ted, we -- >> one side or the other wins a decisive victory, we're talking about massacres. >> we'll get that into more in the next segment, and we'll talk about america's conflict with russia. and later on find out why your email is fair game for federal intrusion. and our associate pro professor is fielding your questions on
see you shortly. ♪ ♪ one of the biggest issues facing the u.s. on syria is what to do about the united nations and the already frosty relationship with russia. the russian foreign minister has shot back at the u.s. and its allies for threatening its ally. >> translator: washington, london, and paris, official stated that they have irrefutable proof that it was the syrian's government fault, but they can't prove it yet. >> he said that the intimidation campaign has already begun like
the events in iraq ten years ago, and in libya more recently began the same way. we're back now and joined by richard minster. i want to start with you. you have been saying for a while we have to get russia and iran out of syria for anything to work. but syria is really their only ally, how do we get rid of them. >> is there are more than 60,000 russian soldiers on the ground in various capacities advising the assad regime. this is russia's last significant arab ally. and there's no way they would give up that key toehold. and it's the reason why the gulf arabs and the saudis are having
a growing controversy. and of course iran working towards an atomic weapon. if you do not do something about iran's strong influence, and russia's influence in syria, the question really is, is -- does russia and iran maintain its strangle hold in syria, or do the syrias have a chance to govern themselves as messy as that may be. >> president obama canceled a meeting with vladimir putin. how do we move ahead. how diplomatically can there be movement with russia and iran where the relationships seem to be so frouth with problems?
>> well, obviously we haven't found the key to unlock that particular door. we have a deputy secretary of state who is an expert on the arab world and on russia. he has served with distinction in both places. he has dealt with the russians, secretary kerry has reached out to them, but as was pointed out, they have important interests in syria. but it goes beyond that. i think there's a national pride, if you will, and putin's sense of himself and russia's destiny. he felt that yeltsin -- allowed russia to be humiliated in bosnia and kosovo, and he had been snookered in libya, and they are just very dug in. nevertheless i agree with chris hill that we can't just give us and quit trying, and i'm a bit
skeptical about that number of 60,000 russians in syria. >> the russians themselves have reported that number. >> chris you were involved in bosnia actively. and their air strikes ended up working against russian wishes, is that a model of what could happen in syria? >> i wish it were. we certainly had large problems with the russians, but i think the russia of putin is different from the russia of yeltsin for some of the reasons that ted outlined. this is a very aggrieved russia, and as richard suggested they are kind of holding on with their fingertips to the arab world. so this is a tall order, and i think it's much more difficult than the '90s, and as ted just said, we have to keep working with the russians on this, and i
think trying to put something together in terms of what will the future of syria look like? a lot of people say the model today is somehow bosnia or kosovo, and in kosovo and bosnia, we worked out various peace agreements so that people would have a sense of what the places were going to look like once the fighting stopped. and right now no one has a clue what syria is going to look like, and for that reason ever is very much doug in. >> a hundred thousand people are said to have died. 1.9 million have fled since march of 2011. the u.s. is pouring money in in humanitarian aide. and the president on friday talked about the problems with the u.s. going forward, and he said if the u.s. goes in and attacks another country would
mandate, then there are the questions in terms of whether international law supports it? again, it gets back down to russia and russia's veto and the security council. but richard i do want to talk to you about your work in syria, in analyzing all of these rebel groups. what will happen if syria does fall apart? you are talk about the kurds, drews, it's a multi-facetted problem. >> it is, and it is a complicated one. and getting into costs just for a second year. the gulf arabs and saudis have been pushing the u.s. on this for more than a year. it's quite possible they could pick up a good measure of the cost. the saudis especially concerned about the iranian influence, they certainly have the ability to come up with some of that money if not all of it.
i think the cost thing could be mitigating through working with the gulf cooperation counsel and the saudis and others. as for the rebel groups, these are a very hetero genius group of people who have very different visions. some of them are terrifying. some of the kurds in the eastern part of syria, would like to break off and join iraqi kurdistan. and begin that long march. this country could break apart. also the russians and the iranians don't want to lose those mediterranean bases in syria north of lebanon, and that would be very difficult to patrol, a no-fly zone over some of those sites, which have been very well protected. >> we have been asking our viewers what they think about the syrian situation, and let's
go to our social media producer for that. >> today we asked this question, do you think the u.s. should intervene in syria, if it's proven that the syria government used whim call weapons. 68% of you said no, and 32% of you said yes. ambassador, the numbers closely reflect the reuters' poll. why do you think americans feel this way? >> as i said earlier and as chris hill said, they are very wary and wary of the involvement in these sectarian ethnic struggles, and which cross -- which transcend boarders. you have iraqi sunnis backing different groups, you have shiites and alois working with
iraq and iran. and the american people rightly understand that we don't have the answers to this. nobody does. >> one question i was asked was why would bash shard assad do this? knowing it would anger the international community and could bring retaliatioretaliati. >> because he feels immune. he did it on the one-year anniversary of president obama drawing a red line about chemical weapons. he feels safe enough to carry out this kind of atrocity. this was done on purpose. it was done to signal that he feels secure in his position, and the u.s. is an insignificant
player in the region, and he will continue. this was a very bold move and the timing was really the message. >> all right. i thank you all for joining us. we will of course keep our eye on the developments there, and see what happens in this terrible humanitarian crisis there. thank you. coming up the man who helped encrypt edward snowden's information says if you know what he knows about email, you would take a break before hitting send.
♪ what you don't know about email may keep you off of it. there are growing concerns from civil libertarians that if your account isn't encrypted, it's fair game. but consider the cautionary tail of the encrypted email service lava bit, one of its 410,000 users happened to be edward snowden, who's highly classified leaks have given the national security agency fits, when snowden used lava be it to
invite people to moscow, lavabit closed down. they closed shop to prevent having to grant access. the creator of lavabit joins us now from dallas. you wrote an open letter saying in part, i have been forced . . . what did you mean by becoming complicit in crimes against the american people? >> well, i felt personally that if i continued to operate the service, knowing what i knew, that i would be complicit in criminal acts against the american people. make no mistake, what was going on was in fact criminal.
the only difference is -- >> in what way? >> the only difference is if it wasn't being carried out by the federal government, it could have been prosecuted as a crime. >> in what way would it have been a crime? can you say? >> unfortunately i can't talk about the specifics, which is in part the problem. i felt something wrong was taking place. it violated my moral code, and i couldn't tell anybody about it. i couldn't even tell my member of congress how their laws were being applied. >> because there is a clear gag order on what you can talk about. >> unfortunately i can't confirm or deny that. >> you can't even go that far. >> that's part of the problem. >> so can you talk about what they were asking for? were they asking just for the information about edward snowden, or were they asking for more -- >> what i can say is my decision
was about protecting the privacy rights of all of my users. it was a question of whether or not the federal government should have access to everyone's email. whether or not the obama administration has the right to demand a back door into another wise secure system via the court system. >> by shutting the site down, though, if you were trying to protect all of your users, can't they still access the information? >> i could get into that, and it would probably be a pretty boring conversation, but, yeah, all of the email i had already collected, i still have access to, and it's still on my systems. of course anything that was encrypted with a person's pass word, i wouldn't have that person's pass word, so i
wouldn't be able to access those mess ages. >> so it would be up to nsa to crack them, if they had access to the emails. so is that what is going on here? the nsa is trying to get all of this information. but then it brings up a thought, why shut it down if they can still get it from you if you still have it? >> i'm walking a very fine line here without divulging what exactly transpired, but i was trying to prevent future transgressions. i have always been comfortable turning over to the government whatever information i have about a specific user. >> right. you have been subpoenaed on a few occasions, a couple of dozen subpoenas, and in those cases you didn't feel because there were individual people and there were reasons you granted those and -- and -- and -- you
accepted the subpoenas and gave over the information. >> yeah, and going forward because i still have access to the data, i could be forced to do the same thing with a particular account. like i said before this was a question of access. should our federal government have access to private systems? to conduct surveillance on people without any kind of review? >> what about the argument that encrypted email servers, and there aren't that many out there, and another one shut down also in the wake of the snowden scandal. what about the argument that terrorists, and even child pornographers could use their emails to do their nefarious
deeds. >> those still have to go out over the internet. and one of the limitations of my system, a person had to tie their name and credit -- credit card if they wanted me to store their information security. >> are you frightened of the nsa? >> no. >> but do you feel -- >> i feel like i'm doing my patriotic duty, and i shouldn't be afraid because of it. >> but you said you feel bullied by the nsa? >> oh, certainly. and it may -- i can't confirm whether or not it was the nsa. because it -- there are a number of federal agencies that conduct surveillance both domestically and abroad. but our government certainly has
no shortage of lawyers, and isn't afraid to use them. and when they have the right people pushing the right buttons, it can certainly feel like you are being bullied especially as a small business. >> and this was your main source of income. >> this was my living. this is what i worked on for the last ten years. >> what are you doing now? >> at the moment, i'm doing volunteer work for our federal government. [ laughter ] >> how -- how are you paying the bills and how are you paying your defense bills? >> well, i have been fortunate when i shut down the service. i put a link on our webpage to a paypal donation page, and i managed to raise over $150,000 from people who agree with my position, so that i can hire the lawyers i need to fight this through the court system.
now it's just a question of time -- >> let's talk about the nsa now, and the average american. not snowden, not your average user who was using encrypted email, really. you're talking about the average american who uses his gmail account who is not encrypted. do they need to worry about the nsa? >> what they need to understand is that if they are using any of those services, and really any form of electronic communication, whether it be facebook, twitter, their cell phone, text messages, all of that information is being collected and archived for up to five years, and if an analyst wants to search it, they can go back and read those emails and text messages -- >> but that's assuming -- >> we have to ask ourselves as a
society if we're comfortable with that. >> that's assuming they are doing something illegal. because they are not supposed to be accessing domestic records. >> we would think that. but some of it includes hopping messages. just exchanging a message with somebody who is under surveillance can result in you being under surveillance. >> kyle asks with lavabit dead, are there any other options available? >> that's an excellent question, and one that has been asked quite a bit of me lately. and unfortunately i can't vouch for any of the services out there. all of the ones i have looked into in north america and
europe, at least in the uk, seem to already be compromised, and basically that's the problem. now there's an asterisks next to any american company because we have to assume that if they haven't been compromised already, they can be based on the current legal climate. i have heard of a couple of non-encrypted services out of australia, how of switzerland, out of sweden they may not be actively participating in any kind of surveillance program, but i can't speak to their security policies. that's part of the reason i'm not using email right now. is i'm not aware of a service i can trust. >> thank you. i know you are going to keep fighting your battle, and we appreciate you being with us
>> michael eaves joins us to talk more about that. the president was having a lot in tonight's data dive, who says soccer can't catch on in america? the seattle sounders of major league soccer, drew 67,385 fans last night for a game against portland. those are nfl numbers. the team even sold standing room tickets. for context, see at's baseball team have drawn an average of 23,000 fans a game this season. why soccer and why seattle?
well, seattle is a little different. it's nfl team practices yoga and dines on free-range chicken, raised specifically for the players, and its resident are the smartest in the country. still last night's game has the second-highest attendance in major league soccer's history. the average 40,000-plus fans per game, nearly double the next-best team in the league, los angeles, which only drew 22,000. it even does well with teams overseas where soccer, or football rains king. seattle would have top ten
consider this, today's media and popular reaction to former child star's miley cyrus's performance at the mtv video awards would single handedly suggest she is responsible for the downgrade of our nation. take a look at our performance from last night. but be warned, many think the tv-14 rating was not enough for the overt sexuality. ♪ >> make some noise! >> here to discuss miley cyrus, mtv and the corporate sponsorship of sex, and dana
del, the executive director of spark. what we showed so far was tame compared to some of the other things that were on that show. amanda you wrote in slate, you said that's not that big of a deal, we should try not caring. i think she has the right to do whatever she wants, but shouldn't parents care. this was -- a lot of young kids were watching this. >> that's the point of pop music, isn't it? to be raunchy, press buttons, and be sexy fun and clever. >> but there is a lot that isn't that way? >> yeah, but miley cyrus wants a larger more adult audience. she wants the 16 and up crowd, and they want the raunchy stuff.
>> but do you have to get as raunchy as this was, now we're seeing some of the more extreme things, and that was just a part of it. this went on for quite a while. >> i thought the performance wasn't even that sexy, because she isn't very good at what she does. >> it was more vulgar than sexy. >> yeah, she was trying on dance form that she is not even very good at. it's called twerking, and we have to accept that the whole point of this dance muse sick to let lose and have fun. >> i argue whether it was sexy or not, again. dana what do you think? >> i think we absolutely do need to care, and i think it really is a big deal. even the first clip, is milley
is a child star. and she is trying to break free. she is sticking her tongue our provacatively, she is using images of childhood and really sexualizing it. i agree with amanda, it wasn't a particularly great performance, and i wish she -- if she were going to use sexualized dance moves, that she were a little better at them. that's an important question. because again this was airing at times on the west coast -- it aired probably around 5:15 in the afternoon -- actually about 6:15 in the evening, a lot of
kids were up. a lot of kids were watching this. what do you do? >> yeah, the images the kids are seeing if you look at milley and also robin thicke are perpetuating the idea of sex where robin is fully clothed and milley is only naked. this is teaching children this is what sex looks like in the world. and those are really dangerous things to be showing. >> dana has a point. robin thicke hasn't gotten much flak for this. >> i agree that it is women and only women that are sexualized in our culture. there used to be more naked men at the video music awards. i remember when prince rap around with like, you know, his
butt hanging out of his pants. and that was awesome, and we don't see nearly as much of that as we used to see on mtv. but the certain about the children was misplaced. it was tv 14. i think as adults it can be hard for us to look at a 14 year old and realize they are starting to be interested in this stuff. but when we were 14 we thought it was appropriate to do then. >> well, i'm not sure there was that kind of access that you could just switch on the tv at a very popular event that so many kids are watching. we could never have seen that -- well, i'm older than you guys. >> when i was 14 years old the prince get off video was really popular, and that basically showed like a barely clothed
orgy on mtv, and i think i'm fine. >> what do you think about that dana? >> i think the way the sexualization of girls has become rampant in all parts of the culture has shifted wildly since we were growing up. you can look at any -- the ways that pornography is so accessible, and we're in a world where we are surrounded by sexualized images all the time. mtv is desorting to a very debasing view of sexuality. >> shawn collins on twitter asks is the problem with a women was sexualized on tv, or miley cyrus showed a sexual side?
>> i think a lot of it was, that it was milley cyrus, but what i wrong with us that we as a culture can't let somebody who was once a child in our eyes become a women in our eyes -- >> i mean she had a very sexual roll on "two and a half men" earlier this year, and i think if somebody else would have done it, it still would have gotten a pretty substantial response. during commercial breaks, mtv repeatedly showed some very racy condom ads let's take a look. >> nothing feels like the freedom of trojan pure exscatsy. >> not -- very tame to say the least. there were actually some more provacative moments in these commercials. again, the content.
this was airing very early. it might have said tv 14 but you have tweens who wanted to see selena gomez and miley cyrus, and they are going to be watching these ads. >> i do a lot of work in getting people to use condoms more often, and one of the things we come across is in our culture safe sex is often seen as not very sexy. and if trojan's sexy ads can push back on that, i have to applaud that. >> even for little kids who may not even have any idea -- >> it would be great if by the time they are 12 years old, they think condoms are a regular and natural part of having sex. >> mtv must have known what was going on? >> mtv scored. they are the big winners out of
all of this. people were definitely tuning in. but at what cost to girls, young men, to the ways we understand girls bodies and girl's power versus men's power in the world. we definitely need better sex education. we need kids to understand why they need to be using condoms, but also it's about teaching about sexual consent and power dynamics, and the ways that girls are across the board hypersexualized and objectified. and that makes it easier to enact violence against girls. >> that was brought up last week on one of our shows, the oversexuallization of women in the media, and that's something that mtv has been notorious for. there have been a lot shock
moments out there their history. should there be more corporate responsibility? >> i suppose it depends on what you consider responsibility. i definitely think it's important to -- to realize and accept that, like talking about sec and using sex as a way to like express ourselves and our idea is always going to be a part of human culture, and it's good for sex health if people are more open about sex. >> well, let's go back to something else with the parents television council, by i should say billy ray cyrus, miley cyrus
is on the board, 38% contained sexual content that rose to the level of sexual exploitation. and the scene was highest when the female characters were underage. so it's especially shocking, but you look again at the media across the board, you have shows liked to -- toddlers and tiaras. >> absolutely. we teach girls from a very young age that the most important thing is being pretty, and that translates very, very quickly into being sexy at like five or six years old. >> what do you think? should miley cyrus be a role
model? >> are pop stars really role models? they are in some way. >> but look at selena gomez, taylor swift, they are graduating from being teen stars without having to do this kind of thing. >> and i think part of the solution is even what we're doing here today, to continue to talk about it and raise awareness about the ways that the media are perpetuating a long of images. and the sexualization of girls is leading to eating disorders and have many impacts on people's a lives. >> thank you both for being here. the show may be over, but the conversation continues on our facebook and twitter pages. have a great night.
we'll see you tomorrow. >> hi everyone and welcome to sarlz. i'm john siegenthaler. here are the headlines. >> this international norm cannot be violatewithout consequences. >> the secretary talks for next steps after the attack in syria. firing shots at u.n. weapons inspectors, also making headlines. >> i would be gone. if i lived there i with would be gone. >> the nation's biggest wildfire still burns through yosemite national park in california.